Search studios

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context: query vs typed-argument exclusivity, refusal when both are written, per-catalogue outcome classification, and no cross-catalogue count aggregation. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by compact behavioral rules. The phrasing is somewhat cryptic ('a failure, a catalogue nobody asked, and an emptiness it established') but every sentence contributes meaningful information without padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, two search modes, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral complexity: exclusivity, per-catalogue results, and count handling. It leaves some parameter semantics to the schema and lacks tool-selection context, but overall it is adequate and useful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (3 of 9 parameters). The description adds important semantics for query (union), typed arguments (intersection, exclusivity), and per-catalogue page/limit behavior. However, it does not explain name, sort, direction, parent_id, has_parent, or sources beyond what schema enums and patterns already imply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Search studios across every configured stash-box catalogue' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling searches for scenes, performers, and tags, and from get_studio.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains internal usage rules ('Two exclusive paths', 'Writing both is refused') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_studio for exact IDs or search_scenes for scene queries. It neither names alternatives nor states exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.